Form No.J(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya & The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Kumar W.P.L.R.T. No. 76 of 2024 Sanjay Saha and Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal and Ors. For the appellants : Mr. Probal Mukherjee, Ld. Snr. Adv., Mr. Debanik Banerjee, Mr. Prasenjit Saha, Mr. Steven Biswas, Mr. H. Shahid, Advs. Heard on : September 9, 2025. Judgment on : September 9, 2025. Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya , J. : 1. The receipt on the respondents’ advocates in respect of mentioning of the matter, filed today on behalf of the petitioners, be kept on record. 2. Despite service, none appears either for the State or for the private respondents. 3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the genesis of the matter is the mutation of a property in respect of the present writ petitioners on the strength of their purchase from one of the daughters of the original owner of the property. The purchase, it is contended, was in respect of LR plot no. 1087, Mouza - Kadampur, JL no. 25, measuring 0.27 acre. It is submitted that initially such mutation was effected in favour of the writ petitioners. However, subsequently, on the same being challenged by the private respondents, the concerned Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, after an initial round of litigation, ultimately observed that since the dispute was civil in nature, the mutation standing in the name of the writ petitioners would not be cancelled. 4. Challenging the same, an appeal was preferred by the private respondents before the appellate authority i.e. the concerned S.D. & L.R.O., who, by the order impugned before the Tribunal, decided the rights of the parties at length and ultimately came to the conclusion that the mutation ought to be reverted back in the name of the private respondents, who are the heirs of the original owner. 2 5. The writ petitioners challenged the said order before the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal, by the impugned order, came to the conclusion that the decision passed by the Revenue authority was the correct decision, wherein it was observed that the dispute is civil in nature and that it can only be adjudicated by the civil court. Accordingly, the direction contained in the judgment of the appellate authority was set aside. However, while doing so, the learned Tribunal observed that liberty was granted to the parties to approach before the B.L. & L.R.O. after disposal of the civil suit filed by the private respondents along with a judgment for the correction of Record of Rights of the case land in terms of the said judgment of the civil court. 6. Learned senior counsel argues that since a specific area of the property in question was sold by one of the heirs of the original owner in respect of a particular plot, there could not be any impediment in mutating the name of the petitioners in respect of the said portion of the property. 7. Secondly, by placing reliance on a supplementary affidavit filed in this court annexing a copy of the plaint of the pending suit, it is argued that in the said suit i.e. Title Suit no. 355 of 2023 pending before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), First Court at 3 Barasat, District – North 24 Parganas, neither the sale deed in favour of the writ petitioners was challenged, nor was the plot in dispute at present the subject matter of the said suit. As such, the very premise of the postponement of the consideration by the learned Tribunal till after the disposal of the suit has been challenged. 8. Upon hearing learned senior counsel for the petitioners and perusing the materials on record before us, we find that the plaint of the suit, allegedly filed by Netai Mondal and others, and its schedule does not include the subject property in the present dispute i.e. plot no. 1087 as the subject of the said suit. Moreover, the sale deed in favour of the present writ petitioners in respect of plot no. 1087 has also not been challenged in the said suit, nor has any partition been sought or any claim being made that plot no. 1087 is a joint property. 9. Before the Tribunal, the private respondents filed their written notes of argument where it was merely mentioned that the private respondents had filed a suit before the civil court and that the same is pending, without disclosing the particulars of such suit. Since it was not the case of the private respondents even before the Tribunal that multiple suits are pending and as the present 4 writ petitioners have furnished a copy of the plaint of a suit filed by the said Netai Mondal and others which is in respect of a property different than plot no. 1087, and where the title deed in favour of the writ petitioners in respect of plot no. 1087 has not been challenged, we are of the prima facie opinion that the pendency of the said suit cannot by itself be a reason for postponing the adjudication regarding the mutation of the plot in favour of the writ petitioners unnecessarily. 10. However, we leave it open for the Tribunal to adjudicate on the issue as to whether the challenge to the setting aside of the mutation in the name of the writ petitioners can be adjudicated by it in view of the plaint of Title Suit no. 355 of 2023 not containing as the subject matter of the said suit the present plot and since no challenge in respect of the sale deed of the writ petitioners in respect of the said plot has been thrown in the suit. 11. Accordingly, W.P.L.R.T. No. 76 of 2024 is disposed of by setting aside the impugned judgment of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in O.A. No. 1159/2023 (MA No. 460 of 2023) (LRTT) dated March 15, 2024 and remanding the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration in the light of the observations made above as well as the plaint of Title Suit No. 5 355 of 2023 pending before the First Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Barasat, District – North 24 Parganas. The learned Tribunal shall rehear the matter on merits in the light of the above observations upon giving adequate opportunity of hearing to all parties to address the issues before it. It is expected, in view of the long pendency of the matter, that such exercise shall be concluded by the Tribunal as expeditiously as possible, preferably within eight months from the date of communication of this order to the Tribunal. 12. There will be no order as to costs. 13. It will be open to the writ petitioners to rely on the contents of the supplementary affidavit filed before this court, including its annexures, before the learned Tribunal. If so, the respondents, including the private respondents, shall be at liberty to controvert the same by filing counter affidavit and arguing on the same. 14. The parties and the Tribunal shall act on the server copy of this order, duly downloaded from the official website of this court. I agree. (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.) (Uday Kumar, J.) 6